Category Archives: government

One of the most tragic aspects of the infamous Titanic disaster is that it was totally avoidable. It was ultimately due to arrogance, hubris and flawed decision-making. And it seems that history is repeating itself. This time, however, the consequences are likely to be far more catastrophic.

Last week, like the captain of the Titanic, the Chancellor of the Exchequer issued his “Autumn Statement”: a mini-budget outlining the UK government’s plans for administering the national finances. A semi-annual event, this is a legal requirement intended to improve government efficiency and make it more accountable for how it manages the economy. As with most things, however, frequency brings diminishing returns. All too often it can be a bit of a non-event. But not this year!

This most recent statement was considerably more significant than usual. For, while government refuses to admit an about-face, they effectively reversed fiscal policy of the past 8 years. The post financial crisis “austerity” programme, aimed at reducing expenditure and reducing or repaying borrowing, has been binned. Instead government is planning to borrow £122 billion, justified – at least in part – by Brexit. Yet, Brexit or not, such back-tracking now effectively invalidates all earlier efforts. It begs the question, “Why did government adopt that course to begin with?”

There is a natural limit to borrowing. The time comes when you have to repay loans. And repayment comes out of income, meaning there is less to spend on your day-to-day expenses. It happens in all walks of life and is never convenient or nice. Thinking people understood this and were prepared to go along with it, uncomfortable though it was.

Similarly, everyone knows that less money means you have fewer purchasing options and, consequently, fewer resources. For any government department, fewer resources inevitably means a declining standard of service. So you have to ask, “Have services declined to the extent that this change in policy is merited?” And, if the answer is yes, then, “Why did the government ever adopt such a policy in the first place?”

As any housewife will tell you, balancing income and expenditure is not easy. They will also tell you that trying to make up lost ground is extremely difficult, if not impossible. So is trying to maintain or restore fallen standards. You would therefore expect any government to avoid such a state of affairs. Thus, you have to question whether the results of the UK government’s action have not resulted in the worst of both worlds. This makes it a failure of Titanic proportions.

What you have here is a classic example of the kind of situation Einstein was describing when he said, “You cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it.” The fact is the system that got us into this mess in the first place has failed. And repairing a failed system is pointless: you have to change it or create a new one. Unfortunately there is no evidence of that happening. Instead we simply shift the deck chairs on the Titanic, resorting to old ideological frameworks that will see us bagatelle back and forth between fiscal and economic policies that continue to fail. It is a disaster of epic proportions that will leave us all considerably worse off than we need to be.

Never before has there been such a pressing need for change. Now is the time to act. It is up to us.

The call for change! First Brexit and now Trump. If you doubted it before, you have to believe it now: people are fed up and demanding change! Both results, however, illustrate the problem with protest votes. They also highlight a significant structural flaw with democracy: the rigidity of the process and inability to change.

Both results reflect a yearning for the past. For Brexit this was represented by the desire to “regain sovereignty”, while Trump prevailed with the rallying cry of, “Making America great again.” Whether these represent an idealised perception of the past or not is beside the point: they are calls for real change. The attractiveness of the past is nearly always a sign of dissatisfaction with the present and, all too often, identified as resistance to change. But perhaps too much is made of people being reluctant to move out of their “comfort zone”, and “change resistance” is nothing more than a management term used to justify the inability to “sell” the need for its own vision of change.

Arguably both results prove that people are willing to change. And, as a species, humankind is naturally curious and thus progressive and up for change. The desire to go back to old ways is simply the natural choice to return to something familiar in the face of either, or both, unpleasant current circumstances and the failure to envisage a new, viable alternative. This means the current situation is, more than anything, a failure of leadership. And that is the paradox of democracy, because it makes little provision for leadership.

After all, if government (those elected) are doing the will of the people, it means the people are leaders. This is implicit in the ideal that their representatives are accountable to them and can be removed from office whenever the people are dissatisfied. This makes innovation a challenge, as any attempt to introduce new ideas requires popular support beforehand; something that most developed nations have failed to build into their democratic processes.

As a result the world moves on while our democratic systems remain largely unchanged. Perhaps inevitably, this leads to the kind of disequilibrium we are currently experiencing – where increasingly dissatisfied, disenchanted and disengaged voters feel angry, and express it in the way they vote, or even don’t bother to vote at all.

Unfortunately, this rarely turns out well. In fact, to coin a phrase, it creates situations where you, “vote in haste and repent at leisure.” You are already seeing this after both these recent cases. For example the very narrow winning margins have left those who did not vote the “right” (winning) way unable to accept the results. Thus you end up with anti-Trump protests, (totally understandable when he was elected with only 27% of the eligible vote) and legal efforts to stall Brexit and perhaps even invoke a second referendum. Voters simply do not feel the margins were a large enough mandate to merit the significant changes the results are likely to bring.

This is likely to exacerbate the polarisation already prevailing prior to voting. Yet it is difficult to separate cause and effect. The level of debate on both sides for both campaigns was disgracefully bad and gave voters very little insight or understanding of what their votes would actually mean. Rather arguments sank to the lowest level of negative claim and counter-claim, with nary a whiff of policy or constructive ideas, and – as has subsequently been demonstrated – no clear idea of how to proceed after winning.

Truly, this democratic disconnect has become a chasm. There is, therefore, a desperate need to find solutions to regenerate and restore true democracy before it disappears completely and becomes little more than a footnote in history. This demands a campaign for real change. It means taking the time to re-evaluate the whole political, social and economic order and – much as the US founding fathers did – developing a fresh system to address the historical shortcomings that have caused the current situation, and, simultaneously, provide the capability for leadership, ongoing evaluation and continuous improvement.

As Zig Ziglar said, “We cannot start over, but we can begin now and make a new beginning!” Let the campaign begin.

Certainly I never thought it was possible: Listening to and largely agreeing with an extreme left wing thinker! Yet whether you agree with Noam Chomsky or not, the points he raises in this “Who Rules the World” interview, warrant consideration and discussion. Unfortunately, judging from some of the rabidly vitriolic responses, this seem to be a vain hope. If nothing else they highlight the danger to, if not the imminent demise of, democracy as we know it – or at least like to think of it.

It was Voltaire who said, “I disagree with every word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It may just be the earth’s increasing revolutions around the sun, but I am (some might say “at last!”) learning the wisdom behind the adage that “There is a reason the Lord gave us two ears and only one mouth!” That doesn’t mean it is coming any easier but, as I mellow, I find myself thinking more about something my headmaster said.

Answering his own rhetorical question, he told our class that, “The two most tragic words in the English language are ‘if only!’” (And probably every other language too!) Yet now perhaps they seem more pertinent than ever. And as I reflect on them I realise that if those of the two most tragic words, the two most powerful words have to be “What if?” Just think of the infinite possibilities that they open up!

And not just for new ideas or discoveries. Think what conflicts might have been avoided or how many lives might have been saved if someone had stopped to consider, “What if they are right and I am wrong?” How much conflict or misery could you have saved yourself if you had asked yourself that? No matter how convinced you are, there is always the possibility that you may be wrong.

That is something worth bearing in mind when it comes to political debate. Here, though, there are a couple of further questions that might take the heat out of the discussion and prompt a more fruitful debate and an ultimately better solution. You would do well to ask yourself:

Why do they think that?

What are they trying to achieve?

I hint at this in “The Democracy Delusion” when I claim that many of today’s problems are the result of policy-based rather than principle-based decision making. I believe that over time policies become entrenched to the point that they get mistaken for principles and thus we get further and further away from the principles. World War I showed us the futility of trench warfare; and our current political situation with entrenched positions is steering us towards a political equivalent with results that might be just as devastating. So let’s pause to ask ourselves a few what if questions and see if we cannot improve things.

What if …

Constitutions had an expiry date and new ones had to be devised every ten or twenty years? (Something that was originally proposed for the US constitution.)

What if …

We could find a way to balance individual human rights with collective rights?

What if …

We could reconcile ideological differences and find a way to fuse left and right-wing thinking to avoid the causes of so much conflict over the past century or so?

What if …

We were able to find a way for people to participate more in the fruits of the labours?

What if …

We could eliminate the tax avoidance and evasion that subverts morality and distorts efforts to create a just and humane society?

What if …

Government could be more representative, transparent and accountable?

What if …

We did not have political parties?

What if …

Elections (and hence politicians) could be made less susceptible to manipulation by lobbying and vested interest groups?

Those are big questions. And there are likely many others that I have missed. But they are questions that we need to address if we are to identify who really rules and move beyond the polarity and polarisation of present day politics. And they are certainly questions that need answers if we are to safeguard the ideal of democracy that most of us hold so dear and which is increasingly being eroded if not actually becoming a delusion.

Yet, while they are big questions and present enormous challenges, they are not unanswerable. They do have answers. We just have to find them and I have endeavoured to play my part in doing so. Apart from renewable constitutions, I have proposed solutions for all the others in my book “The Democracy Delusion.” I believe they provide a very good starting point for discussion, debate and ultimate development.

Making a difference is something I would say is the common desire of most of humankind. And that is not only because it has been a primary motivation for my own life and career. Extensive research, summarised brilliantly by Dan Pink in his book “Drive”, identifies Autonomy, Mastery and Purpose as the 3 innate primary motivational forces. Replace ‘Purpose’ with ‘Determination’ and change the order to M(astery), A(utonomy) and D(etermination) and you can readily see how, at the personal level, they together encapsulate the need to “Make a Difference.”

You may consider this to be ingenuous, and only a mental gymnastic exercise, but there is more to it. Our survival as a species has depended, and actually still depends, on our ability to collaborate and work as part of a group. This is hard-wired into the way we are made and, this physiological fact, means that we all derive our sense of well-being and hence our psychological sense of self-worth from our contribution to something outside of ourselves. The desire to make a difference is therefore a very real phenomenon.

Unfortunately it is not an easy goal to realize. As a species we are part of a great, inter-connected whole. In order to understand the world around us, however, we tend to simplify things by isolating them, categorising them – usually by means of arbitrary definitions, convenient boundaries and clear labels – and then studying them in isolation. This means that, all too often, we tend to overlook or misrepresent these inter-connections. National boundaries are a perfect example of this, where historical, cultural and even geographical factors, have been totally ignored.

Politics, sociology and economics are all fields – often even referred to as sciences – where this short-coming is particularly prevalent. The division of government administration into ministries such as health, education, justice etc. for example, creates silos of special interests and lack of “joined-up thinking” that leads to sub-optimal results for all as the result of limited perspectives, conflicting ideologies, restricted resources and bitter competition for what resources are available.

“The Democracy Delusion” is my attempt to illustrate how so many of society’s current woes stem from this failure to recognise the inter-connectedness of things. In doing so I have also attempted to offer solutions that take more account of this inter-connectedness and thereby to make a difference myself – at least as far as any one individual can. My hope is that you also feel a strong need to make a difference and that together we can create a shift in thinking that compels action and therefore that actually makes a difference.

Accordingly, I invite you to get hold of, and read, “The Democracy Delusion” and encourage others to do so too, and then to stimulate dialogue, discussion and debate around the ideas in it, that lead to action. That way we can ensure that together we do make a difference.

What good news to hear that the Labour Party is proposing to review the complete tax system. It is one of the first sensible ideas I have heard in ages and long, long overdue.

Taxation is the primary means of funding government. It is also an integral part of both our financial and economic systems, and helps shape the running of our economy. It therefore seems logical that the financial crisis should have instigated a review of the taxation system. But alas that seems to be too much to have hoped for.

Unfortunately, all too often, efforts to fund government administration and drive policy invoke the law of unintended consequences, sometimes to disastrous effect. The 2008 financial crisis itself is likely an example. It was fueled in part by a complete contempt for government and governance. You need look no further than “Dieselgate” to see this in action. This shameful episode epitomizes the type of malicious myopia, even willful blindness, of large organisations. It certainly illustrates their attitude to government

Who’s running off with all the money?

regulations.

And even though there may be no direct link, this same attitude applies to tax. Industrial scale tax avoidance unquestionably plays a significant role in our economy. The lack of taxes paid by corporations such as Starbucks and Amazon, (to name two that have recently been in the news) inevitably increases the strain on government, adding to the demand for more debt and/or making debt repayment more difficult and driving “austerity.”

This is a natural and inevitable consequence of the fact that corporations are also required to pay tax. Efforts to reduce tax thus become a leading factor in business strategy and tactics. In turn this has played a massive part in tax advisory services and tax avoidance becoming an industry in its own right.

Recent events in Cyprus and Greece, where foreign bankers now effectively run the country, show that, at the end of the day it is always the man in the street who ends up paying the bill. Austerity is, alas, the inevitable outcome of failures to curb past excesses. It may be avoidable, but only if we fix the systems that allowed it to happen.

It is therefore imperative that any review of the tax system takes a wide view and goes beyond just the levying of tax and looks at the financial system as a whole. We must:

Move beyond adding further layers of complexity to an already over-complicated subject;

Look to principle rather than policy to form the basis of a new tax regime

Avoid perpetuating the ideological divides of the past (which hopefully a principle based approach will enable.)

Endeavour to separate commercial enterprise and tax planning

Cater better for global operations and make business domicile irrelevant.

Any review that fails to do this, will ultimately be a failure and let the people and the country down, badly. It is a matter of national economic survival, not just party survival.

The status quo is not what it was. The recent referendum in Scotland is having an ongoing ripple effect that carries the promise of inevitable change. And we need to ensure that we shape that change to safeguard a better future.

Many people are still wondering how the result turned out to be as close as it was and how a relatively small and seemingly innocuous minority reached a groundswell of over 2 million people. Yet, for once, political analysts seem united.

They all agree that the separatists were able to exploit the percolating prevalent and persistent dissatisfaction with central government and surf the wave of discontent. They call this “civic nationalism.” They see this as disillusionment with politics and politicians, resulting in people looking to regain control of their own destiny.

If, however, that is the case, the answer is certainly not to create more levels of government. Not to create more troughs for incompetent, self-satisfied and self-serving politicians to feed at.

The answer to any problem cannot be more of the same. Yet, all the solutions currently being proposed to civic nationalism revolve around a model that offers more of the same. You need to think very carefully before you allow this to happen. Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it.” If the system is not doing what it is supposed to, then you have the wrong system. You don’t need to repair the system, you need to replace it. So let’s rethink our response to civic nationalism and focus on the causes.

While the situation seems unique to the UK, civic nationalism is a widespread problem with the causes fundamentally the same everywhere. So let’s work together to develop a new system and not be rushed into anything that will not solve anything and ultimately leave us even worse off. Let’s ensure that we enable a future that is better for all.

“Rich double their wealth in five years.” That was the front page headline in a recent Sunday Times. Now I don’t know about you, but for me that is ominous, because living standards for the rest of us are falling.

A BBC report claims that, according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies, a mid-range UK household’s income had declined by 6% in this time. So here you have clear evidence that the rich are getting richer while the rest of us are getting poorer. And, while the report suggests that this decline “was felt equally across high and low income groups,” (one has to question the dividing line between rich and high income) it adds that, over time, the affects will be felt more by the lower income groups.

If you believe that our political system is failing dismally, you are not alone. Leading thinkers like Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum are trying to alert us to this fact. Not only that, they are also stressing the need for urgency. In their recent book, ‘That used to be us’ they state, “Our sense of urgency also derives from the fact that our political system is not properly framing, let alone addressing, our ultimate challenge.” (P10.)

Their book is focused on the US political system, but the problems it portrays, and the fact that many of us are sleepwalking through them, are not unique to the United States; they are phenomena that are endemic throughout the developed world today. Friedman and Mandelbaum bemoan the failure to reap the dividends of “winning” the cold war, the rapid decline and the threat to the country’s “exceptional nation” standing, but the issues they describe are by no means unique to that nation. Unfortunately, US dominance of the world economy compounds the problems for the rest of us, and we therefore are as dependent on their ability to address their own problems as they are.